"Just look how many people Atheists have killed in the 20th Century!!!!"

Abu Lahab
Superfan
Abu Lahab's picture
Posts: 628
Joined: 2008-02-29
User is offlineOffline
"Just look how many people Atheists have killed in the 20th Century!!!!"

I'm getting this same childish argument from a group at JihadWatch and it seems that facts aren't dissuading them.

 

What's your favorite counter to "Just look how many people Atheists have killed in the 20th Century".

 

Thanks,

 

Tim

 

p.s. Redskins fan looking forward to the 2011 draft.

How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Abu Lahab wrote:I'm getting

Abu Lahab wrote:

I'm getting this same childish argument from a group at JihadWatch and it seems that facts aren't dissuading them.

 

What's your favorite counter to "Just look how many people Atheists have killed in the 20th Century".

 

Thanks,

 

Tim

 

p.s. Redskins fan looking forward to the 2011 draft.

 

My answer to this would be: "Look, you are still alive ... moran"

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15756
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Abu Lahab wrote:I'm getting

Abu Lahab wrote:

I'm getting this same childish argument from a group at JihadWatch and it seems that facts aren't dissuading them.

 

What's your favorite counter to "Just look how many people Atheists have killed in the 20th Century".

 

Thanks,

 

Tim

 

p.s. Redskins fan looking forward to the 2011 draft.

Why are you looking forward to the 2011 draft? Danny boy will continue to ignore the offensive line and to continue to buy a team instead of build a team. We have noooo depth and no balance. A star here or star there, a good game here but not there, a good passing game, but no 3rd down game. Good stopping on defense on 1rst and 2nd down but not 3rd.  "Here and there" but not "all the time" is what we have been for the past 17 years.

But back on topic,

"Atheists have killed more people this century"

So 19 hijackers means all of the 4 billion Muslims are terrorists? Priests molest kids so all Catholics molest kids?

This is the fallacy of equivocation. All men with mustaches must love Hitler because they have mustaches.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Eerrm

Abu Lahab wrote:

I'm getting this same childish argument from a group at JihadWatch and it seems that facts aren't dissuading them.

 

What's your favorite counter to "Just look how many people Atheists have killed in the 20th Century".

 

Thanks,

 

Tim

 

p.s. Redskins fan looking forward to the 2011 draft.

 

Hi mate - you'd assume these monkey children are alluding to hitler, stalin and pol pot. I don't think any of these guys were specifically targeting the church from the position of atheism. They were dictators and tried to undermine the seats of social power. This did see them kill and incarcerate brave and upright churchmen but they killed academics, military leaders, mayors of towns, musicians, scientists. Anyone of note was a target.

Hitler was a catholic. Stalin spent time in a seminary. Pol Pot really wanted to live inside an over turned water tank somewhere along Foxes Road at Minyon Falls and never shower again in his entire life. Pot attacked the colonial churches which were oppressing the buddhist temples but he openly espoused theravada buddhism. TB is considered by some to be an atheistic religion but it accepts spirits, demons, rebirth, nirvana and other supernatural stuff that can't be considered atheistic. 

It's a tu quoque argument but there's no doubt believers have killed more people in the past hundred years than atheists. Think of all those soldiers in WW1 praying to god to help them win by murdering their enemies. In any case, there's no direct proof lack of belief in god has any impact on morality, likelihood to murder, etc.

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Couple of quick points to counter

1. Hitler's opening statements and dedications in Mein Kampf involve "duty to God". Men who swore loyalty to the Furher, while holding the BlutFahne, were also swearing before God. The Catholic Church and it's ties to Fascism were quite strong. Quick google searches can demonstrate that the Catholic Church was well aware of the persecutions of the Jewish people under the Third Reich and ignored it. The Catholic Church,Fascism in Italy and Nazism in Germany had very close ties.

2. Hitler did not formulate his ideas about "pure race" and "Aryan people" from actual Darwinism. Darwin's theories specifically spoke about a species ability to survive based on ADAPTABILITY not on the Nazi ideas of "survival of the fittest". This was a complete and total twist to Darwin, who spoke against the need for racism and racial superiority.

3. Three major atheists, Jung, Einstein, and Darwin, had their work villified or distorted by Hitler and the Nazis. The Nazis also distorted the work of Nietzsche, who was against anti-Semitism and Nationalism.

 

This is the first few that I can come up with off of the top of my head.

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
My responce at this moment

My responce at this moment would have to be: why are christians complaining about atheists killing people in the 20th century? And after dealing with Mr. Know it all Jean, no wonder. He's enough to make you want to punch every christian you cross in the face.....three times.

If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
So what's the body count for

So what's the body count for theists in the 20th century, again?

I rest my case...


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:This is the

Brian37 wrote:

This is the fallacy of equivocation. 

It isn't even that so much as a red herring...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Personally, I reject the

Personally, I reject the "well Communism is a religion" argument or some other no true scotsman arguments

 

 

What I do point out is that atheists are  human and ergo have the human tendacy of outgroup thinking and supression and all the nasty things associated with basic human nature that we are all subjected to regardless of belief or non-belief. This dispels the notion that they somehow would have acted differently if they were theists.

 

Second I point out that this has nothing to do with the truth value of religion

 

Finally I point out that they are applying different standards to different belief systems. Such as, if Green Peace were to firebomb a oil field, it doesn't address the fact whether global warming is true or not, or if PETA firebombs a research clinic doesn't mean we shouldn't address animal rights.

 

Also if they wanted to prove that atheism leads to violence, they would have to produce empirical evidence of such and that the studies I've seen show that Theists are as likely as atheists to support violence, dogma, authortianism and outgroup thinking.

 

 

 

 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Bertrand Russell showed

Bertrand Russell showed there are clear parallels between the elements and thought patterns of Communism/Marxism and traditional Christian dogma.

It is dogmatic belief systems which are more likely to be lead to the negative outcomes, as any apparent failure of their idealism is blamed on the 'people' or some conspiracy to attack them rather than any inadequacies or problems with their doctrines. 

Atheism as such is irrelevant with non-religious based dogmas, but it would seem that it would be harder for an atheist to join a specifically theistically inspired organization.

Since many Atheists are such because of a more rationalist approach, it would be less likely although not impossible for them to be attracted to dogmatic authoritarian organizations, unless the aims of the 'movement' were close to their own hearts, such as could be the case with Peta and attacking GW Denialists.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Bertrand

BobSpence1 wrote:

Bertrand Russell showed there are clear parallels between the elements and thought patterns of Communism/Marxism and traditional Christian dogma.


i'd really like to know how that's the case, if we're looking strictly at the writings of marx and engels.  i suppose he could make an argument for millenarianism in marx, but hegelianism was all the rage in those days.  he'd have to throw h.g. wells in the pot as well, for starters.

however, i'll say it again, if we're talking about stalinism, and all the ideologies it spawned, i'm on board.  i'll even partially concede leninism, with its emphasis on a strong revolutionary party and strict party discipline, something marx was not concerned with.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:BobSpence1

iwbiek wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Bertrand Russell showed there are clear parallels between the elements and thought patterns of Communism/Marxism and traditional Christian dogma.

i'd really like to know how that's the case, if we're looking strictly at the writings of marx and engels.  i suppose he could make an argument for millenarianism in marx, but hegelianism was all the rage in those days.  he'd have to throw h.g. wells in the pot as well, for starters.

however, i'll say it again, if we're talking about stalinism, and all the ideologies it spawned, i'm on board.  i'll even partially concede leninism, with its emphasis on a strong revolutionary party and strict party discipline, something marx was not concerned with.

From here: http://geopolicraticus.wordpress.com/2010/03/27/mythologies-of-industrialized-civilization/

A picture of text in Russell's 'History of Western Philosophy' where he made the comparison:

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:iwbiek

BobSpence1 wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Bertrand Russell showed there are clear parallels between the elements and thought patterns of Communism/Marxism and traditional Christian dogma.

i'd really like to know how that's the case, if we're looking strictly at the writings of marx and engels.  i suppose he could make an argument for millenarianism in marx, but hegelianism was all the rage in those days.  he'd have to throw h.g. wells in the pot as well, for starters.

however, i'll say it again, if we're talking about stalinism, and all the ideologies it spawned, i'm on board.  i'll even partially concede leninism, with its emphasis on a strong revolutionary party and strict party discipline, something marx was not concerned with.

From here: http://geopolicraticus.wordpress.com/2010/03/27/mythologies-of-industrialized-civilization/

A picture of text in Russell's 'History of Western Philosophy' where he made the comparison:

Sorry, Bob, but I don't think that is any more a 'clear' comparison than the assertion of atheism as a religion is using the same tactics. Russell gave it 'tongue in cheek' and likely so because he was aware of it's weaknesses as an actual argument. I mean, Dialectical Materialism as God? That is exactly the same as saying atheists worship science and are therefore religious. The proletariat as the elect is a good one though, gotta admire his humour there.

 

 

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
rebecca.williamson wrote:My

rebecca.williamson wrote:
My responce at this moment would have to be: why are christians complaining about atheists killing people in the 20th century? And after dealing with Mr. Know it all Jean, no wonder. He's enough to make you want to punch every christian you cross in the face.....three times.

 

For Father, for Sun, and for Holy Spirit?

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
*sigh* Even if you stretch

*sigh*

 

Even if you stretch the definition of religion so wide it's on it's breaking points to call Communism or Juche a religion, or show that Communism has similar elements to it as Christianity, so what?

Also, since religion is being stretched so far, ANYTHING can be considered a religion. Schools are a religion where the Principal is God and his prophets [teachers] spread his word etc...etc....

 

It's still irrational to therefore assert that X is a religion ergo atheists are less likely to hold to it or the atheists that do are less "atheist" than the "normal atheist" or are more like Theists than atheists.

 

 

It's pointless and irrational and as Eloise said, it can fuel "atheism is a religion" arguments and in no way addresses the fact that atheists did kill people in the 20th century.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:iwbiek

BobSpence1 wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Bertrand Russell showed there are clear parallels between the elements and thought patterns of Communism/Marxism and traditional Christian dogma.

i'd really like to know how that's the case, if we're looking strictly at the writings of marx and engels.  i suppose he could make an argument for millenarianism in marx, but hegelianism was all the rage in those days.  he'd have to throw h.g. wells in the pot as well, for starters.

however, i'll say it again, if we're talking about stalinism, and all the ideologies it spawned, i'm on board.  i'll even partially concede leninism, with its emphasis on a strong revolutionary party and strict party discipline, something marx was not concerned with.

From here: http://geopolicraticus.wordpress.com/2010/03/27/mythologies-of-industrialized-civilization/

A picture of text in Russell's 'History of Western Philosophy' where he made the comparison:

 

Bob,

 

This looks like a comparison of totalitarism and religion.  Of course some totalitarian regimes have used elements of Marx's philosophy.  But you only can equate Yahweh with dialectic materialism if you stop thinking about dialectic materialism as philosophy, but instead use it exclusively as a symbol.

 

This whole idea of comparing Marx theory with religion is no more than western propaganda.  How old is that document, 1945?

 

100%

 

Edit: I feel I may need to clarify what I mean by western propaganda here.  As far as I understand the idea of comparing Christianity with "Marxism", it is to demonstrate that the society without religion is impossible and all that "Communists" did in Russia was that they replaced one religion (Christianity, good religion) with another one ("Marxism", bad religion). 


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:BobSpence1

iwbiek wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Bertrand Russell showed there are clear parallels between the elements and thought patterns of Communism/Marxism and traditional Christian dogma.

 

i'd really like to know how that's the case, if we're looking strictly at the writings of marx and engels.  i suppose he could make an argument for millenarianism in marx, but hegelianism was all the rage in those days.  he'd have to throw h.g. wells in the pot as well, for starters.

however, i'll say it again, if we're talking about stalinism, and all the ideologies it spawned, i'm on board.  i'll even partially concede leninism, with its emphasis on a strong revolutionary party and strict party discipline, something marx was not concerned with.

Where the hell have you been, asshole? I need to pester you...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Of course there is an

Of course there is an element of tongue-in-cheek there, but note that he is comparing the emotional content of the concepts, and I still see some insight there.

He is NOT arguing analogies in the specific claims and arguments.

He is arguing that there is a common pattern in such systems which helps explain why they have the emotional appeal they have, which is why they draw in so many people.

I can see some commonality with Dawkin's idea of memes, they appeal because they resonate with some basic thought/emotion patterns in our minds.

And Cap'n, I am not arguing that atheists would be less likely to believe because it is like a religion, but that since many atheists arrive at that position because they apply a skeptical and rational view to things in general, that they are less likely to accept anything which is mainly justified by explicit appeal to emotion and dogma. But as Dawkins also said about the meme idea, since even Atheists share the basic brain mechanisms with everyone else, they are still susceptible to such things, especially if they don't have specific religious content, or even better, if they have specific anti-religious tenets. 

So it is the systems which lack explicitly religious claims which Atheists are likely to still fall for. You completely missed the point there, Cap'n. The similarity to a religion is not in the actual content of the claims, it is in the underlying patterns or structure of the systems.

The same applies to the more general idea, as Dawkins also said, that because memes 'work' by hooking into more basic brain mechanisms, even 'smart' people are susceptible, because they work at a subconscious level, not so much at the explicitly rational level. This doesn't mean they don't have some 'rational' arguments, but the underlying emotional appeal makes it easier to ignore any weaknesses in the arguments. Just as even powerful computers running complex programs are still susceptible to computer viruses, which is what inspired Dawkins to come up with the meme idea, as 'viruses of the mind'.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:The

BobSpence1 wrote:

The similarity to a religion is not in the actual content of the claims, it is in the underlying patterns or structure of the systems.

 

Excuse me, but this can be true only if you are talking about a government system, or maybe a government ideology system.  I do not see how does it apply to Marxism as a theory. 

Moreover, the two systems (dialectic materialism based communist-type ideological system and Christianity) are very different both structurally and emotionally.  The Marx theory based ideology can be changed for the reasons that can be argued, so it is not a fixed ideology at all.  Also, you probably know that North Korea has moved officially away from Marxism as well as China did.  In Soviet Russia Marxism based ideologies were modified many times.  Most of the time that I remember, Marx was never a cult person anywhere close to Yahweh.  It was Vladimir Lenin.  During Stalin's times, Lenin as a cult figure was in a shadow of Stalin.  Where is Marx in all this?  Also, it is my understanding that "Marxism" as it is perceived by many has actually nothing to do with Marx's dialectical materialism and Capital.  Assuming that Russell was sincere and sane when he claimed that Yahweh is emotionally equal to Marx, he either had not enough information about "Marxism" or he was intentionally misleading his readers.  Either way, his claim is wrong.

 

By the way, I have not heard about a post dialectical materialism theory that would be similarly comprehensive and applicable as Marx's theory.  Do you have any on mind?

 

Edit: and since Iwbiek is back, he probably can make more insightful comments on this and correct me if I go south with my arguments. 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist

100percentAtheist wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

The similarity to a religion is not in the actual content of the claims, it is in the underlying patterns or structure of the systems.

Excuse me, but this can be true only if you are talking about a government system, or maybe a government ideology system.  I do not see how does it apply to Marxism as a theory. 

Moreover, the two systems (dialectic materialism based communist-type ideological system and Christianity) are very different both structurally and emotionally.  The Marx theory based ideology can be changed for the reasons that can be argued, so it is not a fixed ideology at all.  Also, you probably know that North Korea has moved officially away from Marxism as well as China did.  In Soviet Russia Marxism based ideologies were modified many times.  Most of the time that I remember, Marx was never a cult person anywhere close to Yahweh.  It was Vladimir Lenin.  During Stalin's times, Lenin as a cult figure was in a shadow of Stalin.  Where is Marx in all this?  Also, it is my understanding that "Marxism" as it is perceived by many has actually nothing to do with Marx's dialectical materialism and Capital.  Assuming that Russell was sincere and sane when he claimed that Yahweh is emotionally equal to Marx, he either had not enough information about "Marxism" or he was intentionally misleading his readers.  Either way, his claim is wrong.

By the way, I have not heard about a post dialectical materialism theory that would be similarly comprehensive and applicable as Marx's theory.  Do you have any on mind?

Edit: and since Iwbiek is back, he probably can make more insightful comments on this and correct me if I go south with my arguments. 

I think you are still misunderstanding what Russell had in mind, it is at a much more abstract level of structure than you are assuming, and certainly is in no way restricted to a government system.

I suspect you are reading 'system' in a narrower sense than intended. I worried that this would happen, but I couldn't immediately come up with a better term.

I meant it somewhere between the most abstract sense, as in the 'systems' of Logic, Math, which are typically classified as 'formal systems', etc, and the more specific, such as a system of government, or economics, and so on.

Apologies if I did not make it sufficiently clear.

EDIT: I think you should read the article accompanying that picture:

http://geopolicraticus.wordpress.com/2010/03/27/mythologies-of-industrialized-civilization/

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:I think you

BobSpence1 wrote:

I think you are still misunderstanding what Russell had in mind, it is at a much more abstract level of structure than you are assuming, and certainly is in no way restricted to a government system.

I suspect you are reading 'system' in a narrower sense than intended. I worried that this would happen, but I couldn't immediately come up with a better term.

I meant it somewhere between the most abstract sense, as in the 'systems' of Logic, Math, which are typically classified as 'formal systems', etc, and the more specific, such as a system of government, or economics, and so on.

Apologies if I did not make it sufficiently clear.

EDIT: I think you should read the article accompanying that picture:

http://geopolicraticus.wordpress.com/2010/03/27/mythologies-of-industrialized-civilization/

 

Thanks.  

"Marx would have violently disagreed with this, but of course Russell was right, and we have seen throughout the twentieth century how Marxism functioned as a surrogate religion."

This is almost word-by-word what I suspected about Russell & co. intentions.  The whole article will go in trash if this claim is untrue.  And it is untrue!  Smiling

Of course, totalitarian governing can use religious or NON-religious "mythology".    Following Russell and Nielsen, the following logical sequence should be true:  

1) Some communist regimes (or even some communities such as RRS community) replaced religion with atheistic mythology that claims that religion is opium for people, religion serves capitalists, and only atheism is the true way to view real world. [of course, I may disagree with this statement about atheism, but this can be a true statement about communist and other communities' "mythology" of atheism].

2) Religion is replaced with atheistic mythology.  Bingo, atheism is functioning as a surrogate religion! It's religion! ... (emotionally? whatever.)  Well, atheists may violently disagree with this [bullshit], but of course this is right because some well-known guy said it, and we see throughout the twentieth century how Atheism functioned as a surrogate religion. 

 

Yahweh = Big Bang (self-evident event that manifests there is no need for God)

Jesus = Dawkins, or maybe Lenin (for a communist regime)

The Elect = atheists, obviously

The church = RRS forum

The second coming = US President, the atheist.

Hell = believe in God

The Millennium = the world without religion

 

Und?

 


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Of course

BobSpence1 wrote:

Of course there is an element of tongue-in-cheek there, but note that he is comparing the emotional content of the concepts, and I still see some insight there.

He is NOT arguing analogies in the specific claims and arguments.

He is arguing that there is a common pattern in such systems which helps explain why they have the emotional appeal they have, which is why they draw in so many people.

I can see some commonality with Dawkin's idea of memes, they appeal because they resonate with some basic thought/emotion patterns in our minds.

I noticed the blogger mentioned Joseph Campbell as one of his sources for insight, so I understand his reference to a permeating mythological structure that is basic to our minds. However, it didn't seem to me that either you or he was employing it that way, but rather as to say that Marxism is exclusively like Christian eschatology and hence inherently delusional nastiness. I do not believe that sort of thinking was ever espoused by Joseph Campbell.

As I understand Joseph Campbell he proposed that the eschatological formula is perceptible in all mankind's value systems, because it resonates with something basic about our capacity to understand our condition. Each aspect, you might say, of our personal and collective experience takes on the form, to us, of that set exemplified by the Christian Eschatology, by all hero mythologies really; and the persistence of the hero myth as a 'meme' is the product of that. 

So, that all said, I'm not sure if we're arguing here or not. You, and to some extent the blogger, seem to be saying that the 'destiny story' is particular to bad philosophy. If you're not saying that then I apologise and have no argument with you, otherwise, I would beg to differ.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
bob,i see what you're

bob,

i see what you're driving at here (or rather what russell is driving at) and i will agree that, for the common people,  the emotional draw of what came to be known in the soviet union, china, and elsewhere as "marxism-leninism" (which, once again, contained more stalinism than anything else) was basically the same as that of many established (i.e., state-endorsed) religions, in particular russian orthodoxy.

100percent is correct in that marx was never a significant cult figure.  at best, you could compare him to the "father" in the trinity: distant, mysterious, and detached.  personally, i would compare him with ouranos in greek mythology.

i would also like to point out that "dialectical materialism" is a purely leninist concept and cannot be found in either marx or engels.  the term they used was "historical materialism."

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:BobSpence1

Eloise wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Of course there is an element of tongue-in-cheek there, but note that he is comparing the emotional content of the concepts, and I still see some insight there.

He is NOT arguing analogies in the specific claims and arguments.

He is arguing that there is a common pattern in such systems which helps explain why they have the emotional appeal they have, which is why they draw in so many people.

I can see some commonality with Dawkin's idea of memes, they appeal because they resonate with some basic thought/emotion patterns in our minds.

I noticed the blogger mentioned Joseph Campbell as one of his sources for insight, so I understand his reference to a permeating mythological structure that is basic to our minds. However, it didn't seem to me that either you or he was employing it that way, but rather as to say that Marxism is exclusively like Christian eschatology and hence inherently delusional nastiness. I do not believe that sort of thinking was ever espoused by Joseph Campbell.

As I understand Joseph Campbell he proposed that the eschatological formula is perceptible in all mankind's value systems, because it resonates with something basic about our capacity to understand our condition. Each aspect, you might say, of our personal and collective experience takes on the form, to us, of that set exemplified by the Christian Eschatology, by all hero mythologies really; and the persistence of the hero myth as a 'meme' is the product of that. 

So, that all said, I'm not sure if we're arguing here or not. You, and to some extent the blogger, seem to be saying that the 'destiny story' is particular to bad philosophy. If you're not saying that then I apologise and have no argument with you, otherwise, I would beg to differ.

 

hiya, el!

i knew there was somebody i missed reading around here

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote: hiya, el!i

iwbiek wrote:

 

hiya, el!

i knew there was somebody i missed reading around here

Hey there East Kentucky, its good to see you back as well.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  Atheist have killed more

  Atheists have killed more people in the twentieth century   ....than anyone else ?      In contrast to who ?    theistic mass murderers ?

 Does this mean that whoever has the lowest body count  has their religious viewpoint automatically validated ? Who cares.   Perhaps if the Christian inquisitors, conquering Crusaders, and all the other zealots who were known to mix blood with religion had had access to modern day weapons then they could certainly lay claim to most lethal.  History shows that what God's Armies lacked in technology was certainly compensated for by a true religious zeal for exterminating their opposition.  They weren't shy about killing for their God and even became quite creative in the use of coercive techniques.

  I'm not aware of any full scale military assaults or prolonged wars that were waged with the primary goal of furthering the cause of atheism.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:i would also

iwbiek wrote:

i would also like to point out that "dialectical materialism" is a purely leninist concept and cannot be found in either marx or engels.  the term they used was "historical materialism."

 

Thank you.  I feel so much better now when you are around and can correct me!

You are right, though as far as I see the term also appeared in Engels-Kautsky correspondence.  I think we still can say that dialectical materialism is deeply rooted in Marx's philosophy.

This is why we (ignorant junkies) need educated people (like you) who can read and correct our b.s. Smiling

 

 

 


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist

100percentAtheist wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

i would also like to point out that "dialectical materialism" is a purely leninist concept and cannot be found in either marx or engels.  the term they used was "historical materialism."

 

Thank you.  I feel so much better now when you are around and can correct me!

You are right, though as far as I see the term also appeared in Engels-Kautsky correspondence.  I think we still can say that dialectical materialism is deeply rooted in Marx's philosophy.

This is why we (ignorant junkies) need educated people (like you) who can read and correct our b.s. Smiling

 

 

 

well, thanks.  i wouldn't go so far as to call it b.s., though.  as you said, dialectical materialism is the direct result of interpreting marx's writings, and even the idea of what marxism itself is can be subjective at times.  marx didn't create a "closed system," as he was constantly changing and updating his theories in the face of new economic data and historical developments (that's the main reason why capital was never finished.  publishers practically had to pry manuscripts out of his hands.  the soviets usually based what constituted "orthodox" marxism on stalin's (ghostwritten) short course

when i refer to "marxism," i usually go by volume one of capital, the eighteenth brumaire, the civil war in france, critique of the gotha program, engels's socialism: utopian and scientific, and of course the manifesto.

i have to admit my knowledge of marx's and engel's correspondence is hardly adequate.  i think i've only read one letter from engels to kautsky, and i don't remember the content.  i'll check the marxist internet archives later this evening and see if i can find the one you're referring to.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson